alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 296 Engrossed in House (EH)]

                 In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

                                                     November 28, 2001.
    Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this resolution the Speaker 
may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare the House resolved into the 
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of the 
bill (H.R. 3338) making appropriations for the Department of Defense for the 
fiscal year ending September 30, 2002, and for other purposes. The first reading 
of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order against consideration 
of the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall 
not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking 
minority member of the Committee on Appropriations. After general debate the 
bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. The amendment 
printed in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution 
shall be considered as adopted in the House and in the Committee of the Whole. 
Points of order against provisions in the bill, as amended, for failure to 
comply with clause 2 of rule XXI are waived except as follows: ``to be derived 
from the Airport and Airway Trust Fund and'' on page 183, lines 24 and 25; ``to 
be derived from the Airport and Airway Trust Fund and'' on page 184, lines 7 and 
8; ``to be derived from the Highway Trust Fund and'' on page 184, lines 18 and 
19. Where points of order are waived against part of a paragraph, points of 
order against a provision in another part of such paragraph may be made only 
against such provision and not against the entire paragraph. During 
consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chairman of the Committee of the 
Whole may accord priority in recognition on the basis of whether the Member 
offering an amendment has caused it to be printed in the portion of the 
Congressional Record designated for that purpose in clause 8 of rule XVIII. 
Amendments so printed shall be considered as read. During consideration of the 
bill, points of order against amendments for failure to comply with clause 2(e) 
of rule XXI are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for 
amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill, as amended, to the House 
with such amendments as may have been adopted. The previous question shall be 
considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage 
without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or without 
instructions.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
11TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

Rocky Dee Hidrogo, Jr., * From the 220th District Court

of Comanche County,

Trial Court No. CR03104.

Vs. No. 11-20-00225-CR * July 22, 2021

The State of Texas, * Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion

(Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J.,

Trotter, J., and Williams, J.

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that there is no 

error in the order below. Therefore, in accordance with this court’s opinion, the 

order of the trial court is in all things affirmed.
2008 – 2009 Rule Effectiveness (RE) Study for Rules 310, 310.01, and 316

SUMMARY TABLES:

1.  Review of 2006‐2007 RE study results:

Rule Methodology Compliance

Rate

RE Rate 2005 PM10

NAA Emissions

310 63 Targeted inspections  

(administrative violations not considered)

50.79% 50.79% 32,129.85

tons

310.01 124 Targeted inspections  

(all violations included)

67.74% 67.74% RE rate used in

multiple

categories

316 Factor‐ranking; 11 Targeted inspections

form compliance rate (all violations included)

18.18% 54.36% 1,581.41

tons

2.  Re‐cast 2006‐2007 RE study results, using proposed 2008‐2009 RE methodology options:

Rule Methodology Compliance

Rate*

RE Rate (70)† 2005 PM10

NAA

Emissions

310 Factor‐ranking: All inspections in July 2006 – June 2007

(all violations included) [11,335 inspects./6,078 permits]

60.61% 64.51% 24,968.00

tons

310.01 Factor‐ranking: All inspections in July 2006 – June 2007

(all violations included) [4,564 inspects./4,212 permits]

90.36% 77.51% RE rate used in

multiple

categories

316 Factor‐ranking: All inspections in July 2006 – June 2007

(all violations included) [129 inspects./55 permits]

44.23% 55.88% 1,567.66

tons

*”Compliance Rate” was calculated based on results from all inspection in FY2009, excluding site visits with purpose codes of

“close out” or “ineffective visit”, or inspection status codes of “unknown” (meaning no compliance determination was made

during these visits).  Most sites have had multiple inspections during FY2009; thus if site had a status of “in violation” for any

of the inspections, the site was deemed to be out of compliance for purposes of calculating the “Compliance Rate”.    

 

†”RE Rate” shows results with “Compliance Rate” weighted 70% of weight matrix

3.  2008‐2009 RE study results:

Rule Methodology Compliance

Rate*

RE Rate (70)† 2008 PM10

NAA

Emissions

310 Factor‐ranking: All inspections in July 2008 – June 2009

(all violations included) [12,290 inspects./5,459 permits]

87.01% 82.99% 10,566.91

tons

310.01 Factor‐ranking: All inspections in July 2008 – June 2009

(all violations included) [12,370 inspects/11,190 permits]

95.15% 80.87% RE rate used in

multiple

categories

316 Factor‐ranking: All inspections in July 2008 – June 2009

(all violations included) [525 inspects./136 permits]

35.29% 49.62% 944.99

tons

*”Compliance Rate” was calculated based on results from all inspection in FY2009, excluding site visits with purpose codes of

“close out” or “ineffective visit”, or inspection status codes of “unknown” (meaning no compliance determination was made

during these visits).  Most sites have had multiple inspections during FY2009; thus if site had a status of “in violation” for any

of the inspections, the site was deemed to be out of compliance for purposes of calculating the “Compliance Rate”.    

 

†”RE Rate” shows results with “Compliance Rate” weighted 70% of weight matrix

April 19, 2010
****
 ****
 **EXHIBIT
32.1**
 
 
 
 **CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO**
 **18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**
 **AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**
 **SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**
 
 
 In
connection with the Quarterly Report of RegeneRx (the “Company”) on Form 10-QSB
for the period ending June 30 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, J.J. Finkelstein, Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:
  (1)
    The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and(2)
    The
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.
 
 
 
 Date: August
15, 2005
 /s/
      J.J. FINKELSTEINJ.J.
      Finkelstein
      Chief
      Executive Officer
Docket: EBSA-2010-0007 

Request for Information Regarding Lifetime Income Options for Participants and Beneficiaries in 

Retirement Plans 

Comment On: EBSA-2010-0007-0001 

Request for Information Regarding Lifetime Income Options 

Document: EBSA-2010-0007-DRAFT-0012 

Comment on FR Doc # N/A 

Submitter Information 

Name: Scott Zabolotzky 

Address: 

South Elgin, IL, 

Organization: n/a 

General Comment 

As an individual member who participates in a 401k retirement plan, I would like to submit that 

increased investment choices should be required. Many plans offer only a very limited set of 

options to choose from and do not fully provide the employee the opportunity to manage risk 

accordingly. 

However, I DO NOT support the forced/mandatory conversion of ANY portion of existing 

retirement balances or future retirement contributions to be directed into lifetime income plans, 

particularly if such plans are managed/offered/affiliated with the government. The Social Security 

System started out in a similar manner, where contributions of current workers would be saved 

for future expenditures. Rather than saving the contributions of workers, the so-called "trust 

fund" was filled with IOU's, further aggravating the national debt problem and turning the Social 

Security System into a Ponzi scheme that is rapidly approaching the breaking point. The 

government has shown that it can not be trusted with the retirement planning of US citizens. 

To reiterate, I DO NOT support the forced/mandatory conversion of ANY portion of existing 

retirement balances or future retirement contributions to be directed into lifetime income plans. 

PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: February 17, 2010 

Received: February 03, 2010 

Status: Pending_Post 

Tracking No. 80a8d468 

Comments Due: May 03, 2010

Submission Type: Web

Page 1 of 1

https://fdms.erulemaking.net/fdms-web-agency/component/submitterInfoCoverPage?Call=... 2/17/2010
#### § 399.203 Applicability.

This subpart applies to all trucks and truck-tractors, having a high profile cab-over-engine (COE) configuration, for entrance, egress and back of cab access, manufactured on and after September 1, 1982.

[44 FR 43732, July 26, 1979, as amended at 46 FR 56799, Nov. 19, 1981]
§ 605.1 Purpose. ( a ) The purpose of this part is to prescribe policies and procedures to implement section 109(a) of the National Mass Transportation Assistance Act of 1974 (Pub. L. 93-503; November 26, 1974; 88 Stat. 1565). Section 109(a) adds a new section 3(g) to the Federal Mass Transit Act of 1964, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1602(g)) and differs from section 164(b) of the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1973 (49 U.S.C. 1602a(b)) in that section 3(g) applies to all grants for the construction or operation of mass transportation facilities and equipment under the Federal Mass Transit Act, and is not limited to grants for the purchase of buses as is section 164(b).
( b ) By the terms of section 3(g) no Federal financial assistance may be provided for the construction or operation of facilities and equipment for use in providing public mass transportation service to an applicant unless the applicant and the Administrator enter into an agreement that the applicant will not engage in school bus operations exclusively for the transportation of students and school personnel, in competition with private school bus operators.
1210-AB32-2-1288.html[7/24/2015 10:21:16 PM]

PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: July 16, 2015

Received: July 09, 2015

Status: Pending_Post

Tracking No. 1jz-8jvv-plm7

Comments Due: July 21, 2015

Submission Type: Web

Docket: EBSA-2010-0050

Definition of the Term ‘‘Fiduciary’’; Conflict of Interest Rule—Retirement Investment Advice; Notice of

 proposed rulemaking and withdrawal of previous proposed rule.

Comment On: EBSA-2010-0050-0205

Definition of Fiduciary; Conflict of Interest Rule-Retirement Investment Advice and Related Proposed

 Prohibited Transaction Exemptions; Hearing and Comment Period Extension

Document: EBSA-2010-0050-DRAFT-1783

Comment on FR Doc # 2015-14921

Submitter Information

Name: randy regester

General Comment

I do not need the government/DOL or anyone else restricting my use of my retirement funds. Worry about your

 own retirement not MINE!
#### § 525.3 Applicability.

This part applies to passenger automobile manufacturers.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-7380

DEVONE A. TIGGLE,

 Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

E. PEARSON, Warden

 Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T.S. Ellis, III, Senior

District Judge. (1:07-cv-00203)

Submitted: February 21, 2008 Decided: February 26, 2008

Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Devone A. Tiggle, Appellant Pro Se. James Robert Bryden, II, OFFICE

OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Devone A. Tiggle seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. The

order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a

certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000).

A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial

showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any

assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is

debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by

the district court is likewise debatable. See Miller-El v.

Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S.

473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001).

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Tiggle

has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a

certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are

adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument

would not aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Justice

###### Antitrust Division

                    Notice is hereby given that, on June 15, 2023, pursuant to section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301*et seq.*                     (“the Act”), Electrified Vehicle and Energy Storage Evaluation (“EVESE”) has filed written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing changes in its membership. The notifications were filed for the purpose of extending the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances. Specifically, Honda Development and Manufacturing of America, Raymond, OH, has been added as a party to this venture.                

No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and EVESE intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.

                    On September 24, 2020, EVESE filed its original notification pursuant to section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the                     **Federal Register**                     pursuant to section 6(b) of the Act on October 15, 2020 (85 FR 65423).                

                    The last notification was filed with the Department on April 13, 2023. A notice was published in the                     **Federal Register**                     pursuant to section 6(b) of the Act on June 13, 2023 (88 FR 38535).                

Suzanne Morris,

Deputy Director Civil Enforcement Operations, Antitrust Division.

[FR Doc. 2023-18077 Filed 8-22-23; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE P
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 162 (Wednesday, August 23, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 57478]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-18086]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division


Notice Pursuant to The National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993--Southwest Research Institute--Cooperative 
Research Group on Ros-Industrial Consortium-Americas

    Notice is hereby given that, on June 15, 2023, pursuant to section 
6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 
15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (``the Act''), Southwest Research Institute--
Cooperative Research Group on ROS-Industrial Consortium-Americas 
(``RIC-Americas'') has filed written notifications simultaneously with 
the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing 
changes in its membership. The notifications were filed for the purpose 
of extending the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust 
plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances. 
Specifically, Instituto Tecnologico Y De Estudios Superiores De 
Monterrey, Monterrey, MEXICO, has been added as a party to this 
venture.
    No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned 
activity of the group research project. Membership in this group 
research project remains open, and RIC-Americas intends to file 
additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
    On April 30, 2014, RIC-Americas filed its original notification 
pursuant to section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice 
published a notice in the Federal Register pursuant to section 6(b) of 
the Act on June 9, 2014 (79 FR 32999).
    The last notification was filed with the Department on March 31, 
2023. A notice was published in the Federal Register pursuant to 
section 6(b) of the Act on June 12, 2023 (88 FR 38097).

Suzanne Morris,
Deputy Director Civil Enforcement Operations, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 2023-18086 Filed 8-22-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pane l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T UN I T E D S T AT E S OF AME R I C A, P l ai nt i ff

- A pp el l ee , v. RI GO BE RT O LOPEZ - ROQU E, D e f

e n d an t - A p p e llan t. N o. 10- 10419 N o. 10- 10420 D . C. N o . 4 : 1 0 - c r - 0 0 0 6 1 - D CB D . C. N o . 4 : 1 0 - c r - 5 0 0 1 3 - D CB ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt

f orthe D i s tr i c tof

A r i z ona D a vi d C . B ury , D i s tr i c tJudge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d M ar c h 6, 2012 ** B efo re: B . F L E T C H E R , R E IN H A R D T , an dT A S H IM A , C i rcu i tJu d g es. I n th e s e c o n s o lid a te dap p e a ls , R ig o b e rto L o p e z - R o q u e ap p e a ls f r o m h is g u ilty - p le ac o n v ic tio n a n d5 1 - m o n th s e n te n c e f o rr e - e n trya f

te rd e p o rta tio n , in v io la tio n o f

8 U .S .C . § 1 3 2 6 ; an dth e d is tr ic t c o u rt’s ju d g m e n t r e v o k in g h is s up e rv is e dr e le a s e a n dim p o s in g as ix - m o n th c o n s e c u tiv e s e n te n c e . P u r s u an t to 

# FI LED MA R 09 2012 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS10- 10419 2 A n de rs v . Ca lifo rn ia , 38 6 U . S . 73 8 (19 67 ), L op ez -R oq ue’ s c ou nselhas f i l ed a bri ef st at i ng there ar e no g roun ds for r el i ef , al on g w i th a m ot i on t o w i thd raw as coun se l o f reco rd . W e h av e p ro v i d edth e ap p el l an tw i th th e o p p o rtu n i ty t o fi l e a p ro se supp l em ent albri ef

. L op ez -R oq ue has f

i l ed a s up pl em ent albri ef A supp l em ent al a ns w e r i ng br i e f

ha s notbe e n f

i l e d. O uri nde pe nde ntr e vi e w of the r e c or d pur s uantt o P e n s o n v . O h io , 4 8 8 U . S. 7 5 , 8 0 - 8 1 ( 1 9 8 8 ) , d is c lo s e s n o a r g u ab le g r o u n d s f o rr e lie f o n d ir e c t ap p e a l. C o u n sel ’ s m o t i o n t o w i th d raw i s G R A N TED , an dth e d istrict co u rt’s j u d g m en ti s A FFI R M ED . I n l i ghtof

the f or e goi ng, L ope z - R oque ’ s “ m ot i on f ordi r e c tnot i f

i c a t i on by courtt o app el l ant ” andthe go vernm ent ’ s m ot i on for s um m ary a ff i rm ance ar e D EN I ED .
§ 511.49 Fees. ( a ) *Witnesses.* Any person compelled to appear in person in response to a subpoena or notice of oral examination shall be paid at least the same attendance and mileage fees as are paid witnesses in the courts of the United States, in accordance with title 28, U.S.C., section 1821.
( b ) *Responsibility.* The fees and mileage referred to in this section shall be paid by the party at whose instance witnesses appear.
```

[House Report 109-366]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

109th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 2d Session                                                     109-366

======================================================================

 
    RELATING TO CONSIDERATION OF THE BILL (S. 1932) TO PROVIDE FOR 
RECONCILIATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 202(a) OF THE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 
          ON THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2006 (H. CON. RES. 95)

                                _______
                                

  January 31, 2006.--Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 
                                printed

                                _______
                                

    Mr. Putnam, from the Committee on Rules, submitted the following

                              R E P O R T

                       [To accompany H. Res. 653]

    The Committee on Rules, having had under consideration 
House Resolution 653, by a record vote of 7 to 4 with 1 Member 
voting present, report the same to the House with the 
recommendation that the resolution be adopted.

                SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS OF THE RESOLUTION

    The resolution provides that the House hereby concurs in 
the Senate amendment to the House amendment to the bill (S. 
1932) to provide for reconciliation pursuant to section 202(a) 
of the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2006 
(H. Con. Res. 95).

                            COMMITTEE VOTES

    Pursuant to clause 3(b) of House rule XIII the results of 
each record vote on an amendment or motion to report, together 
with the names of those voting for and against, are printed 
below:

                  RULES COMMITTEE RECORD VOTE NO. 145

    Date: January 31, 2006.
    Measure: Relating to consideration of the bill S. 1932, the 
Deficit Reduction Act of 2005.
    Motion by: Mr. Hastings of Washington.
    Summary of motion: To report the rule.
    Results: Agreed to 7 to 4, 1 present.
    Vote by Members: Hastings (WA)--Yea; Sessions--Yea; 
Putnam--Yea; Capito--Yea; Cole--Yea; Bishop--Present; Gingrey--
Yea; Slaughter--Nay; McGovern--Nay; Hastings (FL)--Nay; 
Matsui--Nay; Dreier--Yea.

                                  

```
#### § 585.82 Purpose.

The purpose of these reporting requirements is to assist the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration in determining whether a manufacturer has complied with Standard No. 126 (49 CFR 571.126).